<p>It would be amusing to be a “fly on the wall” as the jury tries to agree on how to interpret the evidence. I think there will be a lot of “let’s see, 7 testified the screams were GZ’s and 6 that it was TM … can we agree for the moment to ignore whose screams those were?”</p>
<p>“You can’t justify something that you supposedly did not do.”</p>
<p>You couldn’t tt … and I couldn’t. But we’re talking about GZ here. At this point he’s told so many different versions of “the story” that even the erudite CC crowd can’t figure out what happened.</p>
<p>CC Jurors: Can we select a foreperson among us here to continue the debate when the defense rests? It’s interesting to compare our verdict with the actual verdict.</p>
<p>“our” verdict is meaningless…</p>
<p>I want a Foreperson who’s willing to add “Idiot” to the usual “Guilty/Not Guilty” ballot choices.</p>
<p>(I guess that leaves me out of the running for FP.)</p>
<p>
True, but I’m still interested in the answer to the question. I don’t know everyone’s gender but it seems as thought the only folks leaning towards innocent are all men. Statistically that points to something more than coincidence to me.</p>
<p>coolweather, interesting idea! We could poll our posters for 1) acquit; 2) guilty of murder in the 2nd; and 3) guilty of manslaughter. </p>
<p>(I wish there were a 4th category: innocent of murder and manslaughter but guilty of having such horrible judgment and poor decision-making that he should serve 6 months in jail for the heck of it.)</p>
<p>… but in an effort to be constructive, I suggest starting here:</p>
<p>Which of these was REALLY happening at the moment GZ decided to shoot TM?
(a) He was passing out from his head being beaten on the concrete; or
(b) He was screaming as TM rained blows down on him; or
(c) He was being smothered by TM’s arm; or
(d) He was calling “Help me … help me” (from his Webpage); or
(e) With George telling the story we’ll never know. Next issue!</p>
<p>^^ I’m voting with Hayden. (How about the rest of you? Just four more “6 months for idiocy” votes and we’re on our way home!)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On the 911 call, GZ said TM looked like he was on drugs. The marijuana supports that conclusion. In addition, the defense will try to introduce the pictures on TM’s phones of pot plants and him smoking.</p>
<p>I’d go for hayden’s count 4 no problem.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And the jury is all women.</p>
<p>razorsharp, people on this forum are self-selected. Posters on this thread are self-selected. The jury isn’t.</p>
<p>“Can we all agree Georgie ain’t very bright?”</p>
<p>How 'bout it razor. Are you in re: Hayden’s Count 4?</p>
<p>Just 6 months for “walking while black” ?
My vote is for 2</p>
<p>Yes, count me in on Hayden’s count 4, but I would like to up the sentence to two years just for the heck of it.</p>
<p>I’m in for a minimum idiot sentence. But I’m thinking it will be manslaughter.</p>
<p>"… but I would like to up the sentence to two years just for the heck of it."</p>
<p>You must be from Texas. But I’m good with the 24.</p>
<p>following someone suspicious in a crime ridden area might make you an idiot…but also might make you brave, someone who is not afraid to be proactive and maybe make a difference.</p>
<p>“In addition, the defense will try to introduce the pictures on TM’s phones of pot plants and him smoking.”</p>
<p>The marijuana is in because the info is contained within the autopsy report but pictures from the past doing something unflattering is way out of context. How about what do you think of presenting GZ pictures at a shooting range or something like that? I don’t know where you get your information or is it just wild speculation that you just made up, but why would the defense even try to introduce such evidence?</p>